Kelvin.Max
caelitus mihi vires
But what is bigotry?
Bigoted is subjective, and relative to the onlooker. For what is "bigotry" to one person is not necessarily "bigoted" to others.
You say that tolerance is accepting the rights of people to express objectionable opinion, whilst condemning their ignorance and bigotry in the strongest possible terms. But this is no more than generalization of religious and political tolerance. However, there are always exceptions to this rule.
Such as in the case of terrorism*, murder, rape, child abuse, and armed robbery etc; crimes which are so abhorrent that they usually carry stiff penalties. That such crimes are invariably punished is directly a result of primary legislation, which are based on political opinion, cultural norms and values in the respective jurisdiction.
By definition, we do not accept that people have a right to behave like this; which means such prohibitive legislation and censuring are in fact based on bigoted opinion by lawmakers; although as a rule, we do not call it "bigotry" as such, for it would call into doubt the legitimacy of such legislation and (social) taboo in society.
So tolerance implies one's acceptance of racial, religious, and political diversity, which is one thing in a free and democratic society; but it's altogether different for somebody to come along and try to forcibly convert you to their way of thinking.
As a matter of principle, such infringement of rights, and encroachment onto other people's territory by those who disrespect your sovereign right as an individual cannot, and will never be acceptable to any democratic society such as France, Germany, England, Canada or the United States etc.
By definition, democracy (or diversity) doesn't give anybody - which includes corrupt officials in government - the right to step on other people's toes, which is directly a threat to the territorial and sovereign rights of others who have natural rights as individuals within society - i.e. psychological, political, and sovereign territory of individuals.
Take for instance, the historic example of the Boston Tea Party, whereby a group of conspirators have remonstrated and rejected British colonial rule in the thirteen colonies, which would soon be the United States of America.
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 rejected British colonial rule in the thirteen colonies; but the Founding Fathers have never rejected British people as a race nor as kindred.
So it is one thing to accept people for what they are; but it's a different matter to be told what to do by the same people, whose "authority" you do not accept as legitimate.
Generally speaking, our definition of "ignorance" or "bigotry" must contain an exemption "clause", which would allow ZERO TOLERANCE against those who may overstep their bounds to infringe the Rights of others - otherwise, we must call into doubt the legitimacy of those who have stood their ground to fight, and defend what is rightfully theirs.
Such infringement of moral precepts and principles cannot, and should never be tolerated by anyone who is sane or rational, and with reasonable intelligence to know one's protagonists (antagonists) have crossed the bounds of moral rectitude and righteous behaviour. For it is one thing to accept people for what they are; but it's a different matter to "accept" such breach of moral precepts and principles, which cannot be acceptable to anybody who is sane or rational, and with reasonable intelligence to know that they're under threat by an extraneous source.
Generally, we are only beholden to the lawful Sovereign of our country; but we cannot, and shall never accept being told what to do by any foreign government nor sovereign power - assuming one is outside the lawful remit, and lawful territory of such power.
This is what I mean by ZERO TOLERANCE, which is non-acceptance of extraneous power, or extraneous infringement of one's sovereign rights, and sovereign territory.
Basically, I think each person should mind his own business; for each one of us should exercise self-restraint and self-control (to resist temptation, or innate propensity to do evil), and thereby refrain from crossing the line into other people's territory.
Otherwise, such infringement and insult cannot go unanswered. (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21; John 5:22-23, 5:27-30, 10:9, 14:6; Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:8)
Synopsis: Tolerance (i.e. democracy and freedom of expression) doesn't mean we should accept unjust violations of moral precepts and principles; nor does it mean that people will have a right to infringe the rights and freedom of others.
NOTE* - Terrorism is usually synonymous to mass murder in the modern context of the 20th-21st century.
Last edited:
